Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Remarks U.S.C. § 101 filed on 07/11/2025 regarding
U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark, on page 2, asserts amended claim 1 includes a recitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of revised step 2A, specifically amended claim 1’s recitation of “one or more electric mobility devices located within a service area, wherein the plurality of electric mobility devices each execute a service request within the service area.”.
However, the electric mobility devices execute service requests such as detecting of abnormalities that can be executed remotely without the need of the electric mobility device. The detection of abnormalities, as disclosed in the specification, include a simple recognition of abnormalities such as of debris and liquid spillage, and can be executed remotely using sensors and cameras without the need of the electric mobility device, which is a form of insignificant extra-level solution activity. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remark, on page 2, asserts that on paragraph 0065 of the specification states “the electric mobility device communication system provides an approach for executing service requests generated by a remotely located client server by an electric mobility device within a service area, where the service request includes collecting information regarding the environment of the service area” which necessitates the withdrawal of the rejection.
However, as discussed above, the electric mobility device communication system merely executes service requests such as detecting of abnormalities that can be executed remotely by cameras and sensors without the need of the electric mobility device. Furthermore, collecting of information amounts to simple gathering of information using an electronic mobility device without significant extra-level solution, therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remark, on page 2 and 3, states the specification reciting “the service request may also include detecting abnormalities within the service area such as housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues” therefore the rejection should be withdrawn.
However, as disclosed above, the detection of abnormalities indicate a simple recognition of abnormalities that can be executed without the need of electronic mobility device. Abnormalities such as lighting devices that are inoperative and maintenance issues do not require the electronic mobility device, and can be detected remotely using different sensors such as infrared sensors and cameras. Because the claim recites a form of insignificant extra-level solution activity, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remark, on page 3 states claim 17 further recites in part “establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device” that renders practical application therefore the rejection should be withdrawn.
However, simply establishing a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device represents a basic direct network configuration that is well-known in the art, and does not amount to a significant extra-level solution activity. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Remarks U.S.C. § 103 filed on 07/11/2025 regarding
U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark, on page 3, asserts that the amended claim 1 recites “wherein the service task is detecting abnormalities” is not taught by the cited references.
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff teaches about different tasks that can be executed by the electric mobility devices(robots), it fails to disclose the service tasks being detecting abnormalities. One of the abnormalities that can be detected by the electronic mobility device is a housekeeping issue such as detecting of spillage on the floor. New reference Fisher teaches about a task that can be executes by a robot such as detecting of a spillage on a floor.( Fisher, paragraph 09, the robot includes: an actuator configured to move the robot between locations; a spill detector comprising at least one optical imaging device configured to capture at least one image of a scene containing a spill while the robot moves between locations)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,13, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 4 and 5, applicant asserts that dependent claims 3-5, 15-16, and 19-20 depend on amended independent claim 1, 13, or 17, and that Bailley does not remedy the deficiency of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff.
However dependent claims 3-5, 15-16, and 19-20 depend on independent claims 1, 13, or 17, and claims 1, 13, and 17 remain rejected as shown in this section of the office action. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
On page 5, applicant states claims 6 and 7 depend on independent claim 1, and that Sisbot does not remedy the deficiency of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff.
However dependent claims 6 and 7 depend on independent claims 1 remains rejected as shown in this section of the office action. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1,2,4,13,14,17,18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, An electric mobility device communication system including one or more remotely located client servers, the electric mobility device communication system
comprising:
one or more electric mobility devices located within a service area, wherein the one or more electric mobility devices each executes the service request within the service area.
one or more central computers in wireless communication with the one or more electric mobility devices and the one or more remotely located client servers, wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to:
receive a service request from one of the client servers, wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area, wherein the task is detecting abnormalities;
determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area;
in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; and
transmit the service request to the electric mobility device.
Claim 17 has similar recitation as claim 1, with the difference being a task of detecting abnormalities wherein the task is detecting abnormalities and the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues”; and
Establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a manufacture including at least one product. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
A central computer that receives a service request from one of the client servers, wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area, wherein the task is detecting abnormalities.
A central computer that determines a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area.
A central computer in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; and
A central computer that transmits the service request to the electric mobility device,
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area; in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria. The determining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of central computer. That is, other than reciting central computer nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, for the “central computer” language, the claim encompasses retrieving the GPS location of each electric mobility device at a given area and determining the total number of electric mobility device that are available for executing a task. The mere nominal recitation of a central computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the identifying of an electric mobility device that execute the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user checking the state of charge of a battery of the electric mobility device, and determining if it has enough charge to complete a task, without a need of computers.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element or steps of receiving receives a service request from one of the client servers, wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area. The receiving steps from the computer is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere task of insignificant extra-level solution activity. The transmitting of service is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending service request to the electric mobility device to execute the task), and amounts to mere transmitting information, which is a form of insignificant extra-level solution activity. The claim further recites the detecting of abnormalities that can be executed by the electric mobility device. The detection of abnormalities indicates a simple recognition of abnormalities that can be executed remotely by cameras and sensors without the need of the electric mobility device, which is a form of insignificant extra-level solution activity.
Claim 17 has similar recitation as claim 1, with the difference being the amendment recites “establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device”, which does not recite significant extra-level solution activity.
Simply establishing a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device represents a basic direct network configuration that is well-known in the art, and does not amount to a significant extra-level solution activity. Furthermore, the communication is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a direct communication between the electric mobility device and the client server), and amounts to mere establishment of network, which is a form of insignificant extra-level solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible. Furthermore, dependent claims 2,4,14, 18, and 21 do not contain limitations that would render them patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2,12,13,14,and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinla (US 20180232839 A1) (hereinafter Heinla) in view of McDuff (US 20200233419 A1) (hereinafter McDuff) in further view of Kokkonen (US 20170318422 A1) (hereinafter Kokkonen) in further view of Fisher (US 20200086494 A1) (hereinafter Fisher).
Regarding claim 1, An electric mobility device communication system(Heinla paragraph 32, A system comprising, paragraph 33 (a) at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations;) including one or more remotely located client servers (paragraph 102, Delivery terminal 40 can send request for a delivery to the server. Delivery terminal 40 can be a personal computer, a laptop, a cell phone, a tablet, and/or a wearable computing device such as a watch, a wristband, a ring, glasses and/or contact lenses. Delivery terminal 40 does not have to be at the same physical location the delivery will be transported to), the electric mobility device communication system comprising (Heinla paragraph 32, A system comprising, para 33 (a) at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations;):
one or more electric mobility devices (Heinla paragraph 34 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to wirelessly communicate with the at least one server)located within a service area(Heinla paragraph 100, Hub 20 can be used to store, maintain, repair, recharge, and/or resupply robot. Hub 20 can be a physical location or a physical structure such as a shipping container, a warehouse, a depot, a garage and/or a house Para 102, One hub 20 may serve an area of 2-10 square kilometers).
one or more central computers (Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server.) in wireless communication(Heinla paragraph 69, A system according to any of the preceding embodiments wherein the communication within the system is wireless.) with the one or more electric mobility devices and the one or more remotely located client servers(Heinla paragraph 41 A system according to any one of the embodiments 2 or 3, wherein the communication between the robot and the delivery terminal is done via the server.), wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to:
receive a service request from one of the client servers (Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot),
; and
transmit the service request to the electric mobility device (Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot.).
While Heinla teaches about a system of communication between electric mobility devices, client servers, and central computers to receive a task request and transmit the request to the electric mobility device, Heinla fails to teach about receiving specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area;
Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area;
And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; electric mobility devices wherein the one or more electric mobility device each execute the service request within the service area; tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device wherein the task is detecting abnormalities.
However, Kokkonen, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches system and methods for navigational guidance that can incorporate robots, discloses a service request that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area. Receive specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area(Kokkonen, paragraph 117 In one embodiment, during the trips to pick up the items purchased by the users via the online shopping cart system, the robots (101) survey the inventory of remaining items available in the stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera (109) and/or RFID reader. The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations); Electric mobility devices(robots) wherein the one or more electric mobility device each execute the service request within the service area (Kokkonen, paragraph 117,The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Heinla by incorporating the feature of Kokkonen’s robot. As mentioned in the specification, a service request represents a task where electric mobility devices perform at a given location, and one of the service requests being determining the availability of a specific item of inventory within the service area. Kokkonen’s robots identify the inventory of remaining items available in stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera and/or RFID reader. In addition, Kokkonen teaches its robot having the ability to determine the currently available items and their locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the camera or RFID reader of Kokkonen that can take image/scan of an item, to check its availiablity. This feature is useful as it allows the user to get an up-to-date information regarding the availability of an item they want to purchase.
The combination of Heinla and Kokkonen specifically fail to disclose:
Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area;
And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device wherein the task is detecting abnormalities.
However, McDuff, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about using autonomous vehicle as barrier, discloses about determining number of available mobility devices that are able to execute requests. Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area (McDuff para 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies the inventory of the self-driving autonomous vehicles 102. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine the number of self-driving autonomous vehicles 102 that are available for deployment to the event location).And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria (McDuff Paragraph 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies a subset of autonomous vehicles 102 as candidate vehicles based on criteria. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine which autonomous vehicles 102 to identify by looking at different criteria. Paragraph 40, The criteria may include the distance between the autonomous vehicle 102 and the event location, the charge level or fuel status of the autonomous vehicle). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla and Kokkonen with McDuff regarding the determination of the number of electronic mobile devices in an area. It would have been an obvious modification to incorporate the number determining feature taught by McDuff in area so that the system can assign vehicles to locations nearest to a specific vehicle’s current location. In addition, McDuff teaches a criterion of selecting a vehicle for performing a task, such as evaluating the state of battery charge of autonomous vehicle to determine its capability of completing a task. By incorporating the identifying the number of available vehicles at a location, as well as selecting a vehicle that is in the best condition, it is possible to assign a task to a vehicle that is most capable of completing a task.
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff teaches about different tasks that can be executed by the electric mobility devices(robots), it fails to disclose tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device wherein the task is detecting abnormalities.
However, Fisher, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an apparatus for detecting and characterizing debris pickup during a cleaning operation, discloses electric mobility device wherein the task is detecting abnormalities(As disclosed in the specification, one of the abnormalities that can be detected by the electronic mobility device is a housekeeping issue such as detecting of spillage on the floor. Fisher, paragraph 09, the robot includes: an actuator configured to move the robot between locations; a spill detector comprising at least one optical imaging device configured to capture at least one image of a scene containing a spill while the robot moves between locations ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff with Fisher’s electric mobility devices(robots) that can execute the task of detecting abnormalities such as a detection of spillage on the floor. While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff discuss the different tasks that can be performed by a robot such as surveying an inventory and picking up items, it specifically fails to disclose detecting abnormalities such as detection of spillage. Fisher addresses this deficiency by disclosing robots that are equipped with spill detector that identity spillage. Robots that detect spill use sensors like camera that provide standardized detection capabilities. They won’t miss spill because of human inefficiency offering consistent spill detection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 1, wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to:( Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server)
in response to transmitting the service request to the electric mobility device (Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot), access one or more map files that represent a predetermined layout of the service area;( Initial map data corresponds to a predetermined layout before its adjusted by sensor data, and Heinla on paragraph 19 discloses its server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data. That is, in some embodiments, the robot is adapted to map its surroundings and localize itself based on such a map. The mapping and/or localization can be performed on the robot and/or on the server and/or be split between the two. The server can also perform calculations, for example calculations related to the generation of a geographical map, localization calculations or route calculations for the robot.) and
transmit the one or more map files to the electric mobility device. (Heinla Paragraph 19, The server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches The electric mobility device communication system of claim 1(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein one or more electric mobility device selection criteria includes one or more of the following: a distance between a current location of each electric mobility device versus a location within the service area of the service request, perception capabilities of the one or more electric mobility devices, a computing power of each of the one or more electric mobility devices, a current task list of each of the one or more electric mobility devices, a state-of-charge of a battery of each of the one or more electric mobility devices(McDuff Paragraph 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies a subset of autonomous vehicles 102 as candidate vehicles based on criteria. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine which autonomous vehicles 102 to identify by looking at different criteria. Paragraph 40, The criteria may include the distance between the autonomous vehicle 102 and the event location, the charge level or fuel status of the autonomous vehicle), and network availability of each of the one or more electric mobility devices.
Regarding claim 13, A method of executing a service request by an electric mobility device communication system(Heinla paragraph 32, A system comprising, paragraph 33 (a) at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations) including one or more electric mobility devices(Heinla paragraph 34 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to wirelessly communicate with the at least one server) located within a service area(Heinla paragraph 100, Hub 20 can be used to store, maintain, repair, recharge, and/or resupply robot. Hub 20 can be a physical location or a physical structure such as a shipping container, a warehouse, a depot, a garage and/or a house Para 102, One hub 20 may serve an area of 2-10 square kilometers) and one or more remotely located client servers (Heinla paragraph 102, Delivery terminal 40 can send request for a delivery to the server. Delivery terminal 40 can be a personal computer, a laptop, a cell phone, a tablet, and/or a wearable computing device such as a watch, a wristband, a ring, glasses and/or contact lenses. Delivery terminal 40 does not have to be at the same physical location the delivery will be transported to), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more central computers, the service request from one of the one or more remotely located client servers(Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot. Heinla paragraph 12, A navigation server of the autonomous neighborhood vehicle provides a remote sensing capability to the autonomous neighborhood vehicle such that the autonomous neighborhood vehicle is autonomously navigable to the destination), and wherein the one or more central computers are in wireless communication(paragraph 69, A system according to any of the preceding embodiments wherein the communication within the system is wireless.) with the one or more electric mobility devices and the one or more remotely located client servers(paragraph 41 A system according to any one of the embodiments 2 or 3, wherein the communication between the robot and the delivery terminal is done via the server.); and transmitting the service request to the electric mobility device(Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot).
While Heinla teaches about a system of communication between electric mobility devices, client servers, and central computers to receive a task request and transmit the request to the electric mobility device, Heinla fails to teach about receiving specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area and the task is detecting abnormalities; determining, by the one or more central computers, a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area
and in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identifying an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria.
However, Kokkonen, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches system and methods for navigational guidance that can incorporate robots, discloses a service request that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area. Receive specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area(Kokkonen, paragraph 117 In one embodiment, during the trips to pick up the items purchased by the users via the online shopping cart system, the robots (101) survey the inventory of remaining items available in the stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera (109) and/or RFID reader. The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations). Transmit the service request to the electronic mobility device wherein the electric mobility device executes the service request within the service area (The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Heinla by incorporating the feature of Kokkonen’s robot. As mentioned in the specification, a service request represents a task where electric mobility devices perform at a given location, and one of the service requests being determining the availability of a specific item of inventory within the service area. Kokkonen’s robots identify the inventory of remaining items available in stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera and/or RFID reader. In addition, Kokkonen teaches its robot having the ability to determine the currently available items and their locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the camera or RFID reader of Kokkonen that can take image/scan of an item, to check its availiablity. This feature is useful as it allows the user to get an up-to-date information regarding the availability of an item they want to purchase.
The combination of Heinla and Kokkonen specifically fail to disclose:
determining, by the one or more central computers, a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area
and in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identifying an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device and the task is detecting abnormalities.
However, McDuff, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches autonomous vehicle as barrier disclose about determining number of available mobility devices that are able to execute requests. Determining, by the one or more central computers, a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area (McDuff para 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies the inventory of the self-driving autonomous vehicles 102. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine the number of self-driving autonomous vehicles 102 that are available for deployment to the event location). and in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identifying an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria (McDuff Paragraph 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies a subset of autonomous vehicles 102 as candidate vehicles based on criteria. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine which autonomous vehicles 102 to identify by looking at different criteria. Paragraph 40, The criteria may include the distance between the autonomous vehicle 102 and the event location, the charge level or fuel status of the autonomous vehicle). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla and Kokkonen with McDuff regarding the determination of the number of electronic mobile devices in an area. It would have been an obvious modification to incorporate the number determining feature taught by McDuff in area so that the system can assign vehicles to locations nearest to a specific vehicle’s current location. In addition, McDuff teaches a criterion of selecting a vehicle for performing a task, such as evaluating the state of battery charge of autonomous vehicle to determine its capability of completing a task. By incorporating the identifying the number of available vehicles at a location, as well as selecting a vehicle that is in the best condition, it is possible to assign a task to a vehicle that is most capable of completing a task.
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff teaches about different tasks that can be executed by the electric mobility devices(robots), it fails to disclose tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device and the task is detecting abnormalities.
However, Fisher, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an apparatus for detecting and characterizing debris pickup during a cleaning operation, discloses tasks that are executed by the electric mobility device and the task is detecting abnormalities(As disclosed in the specification, one of the abnormalities that can be detected by the electronic mobility device is a housekeeping issue such as detecting spillage on the floor. Fisher, paragraph 09, a robot is disclosed. In one exemplary implementation, the robot includes: an actuator configured to move the robot between locations; a spill detector comprising at least one optical imaging device configured to capture at least one image of a scene containing a spill while the robot moves between locations).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff with Fisher’s electric mobility devices(robots) that can execute the task of detecting abnormalities such as a detection of spillage on the floor. While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff discuss the different tasks that can be performed by a robot such as surveying an inventory and picking up items, it specifically fails to disclose detecting abnormalities such as detection of spillage. Fisher addresses this deficiency by disclosing robots that are equipped with spill detector that identity spillage. Robots that detect spill use sensors like camera that provide standardized detection capabilities. They won’t miss spill because of human inefficiency offering consistent spill detection.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server): in response to transmitting the service request to the electric mobility device(Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot), accessing one or more map files that represent a predetermined layout of the service area; ( Initial map data corresponds to a predetermined layout before its adjusted by sensor data, and Heinla on paragraph 19 discloses its server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data. That is, in some embodiments, the robot is adapted to map its surroundings and localize itself based on such a map. The mapping and/or localization can be performed on the robot and/or on the server and/or be split between the two. The server can also perform calculations, for example calculations related to the generation of a geographical map, localization calculations or route calculations for the robot.) and transmitting the one or more map files to the electric mobility device. (Heinla Paragraph 19, The server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 1(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues(According to the specification, one of the housekeeping issue is spillage on the floor. Fisher, paragraph 09, the robot includes: an actuator configured to move the robot between locations; a spill detector comprising at least one optical imaging device configured to capture at least one image of a scene containing a spill while the robot moves between locations ).
Claims 3,4,5,15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinla (US 20180232839 A1) (hereinafter Heinla) in view of McDuff (US 20200233419 A1) (hereinafter McDuff) in further view of Kokkonen (US 20170318422 A1) (hereinafter Kokkonen) in further view of Fisher (US 20200086494 A1) (hereinafter Fisher) in further view of Bailley (US 20210004363 A1) (hereinafter Bailley).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches The electric mobility device communication system of claim 2,( Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server).
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches about a server that store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data, it fails to teach a capability wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: receive, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device.
However, Bailley which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about map updating mechanism for autonomous vehicles discloses a map system
wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to:
receive, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device(Bailly Paragraph 127, Differences between the sensor point cloud data and the HD map point cloud data can be utilized by the change detection system 1620 to determine whether there has been a change at that location, such as a new object in a new object location or a known object being absent. The perception module 1610 can be configured to process the received data to determine sensor data (e.g., camera data or LIDAR data or point cloud difference data) that is to be processed and the frequency (e.g., process 1 out of every 3 frames) of analyzing the processed data. Paragraph 149 The vehicle 150 compares 908 data associated with the objects detected by the vehicles to data associated with the objects on the maps to determine any discrepancies between the vehicle's 150 perception of its environment (i.e., the physical environment corresponding to the predetermined region) and the representation of the environment that is stored in the HD map store 165) and
determine a timeframe of the spatial differences, wherein the timeframe indicates the spatial differences are caused by either a short-term change or a long-term change. (Bailly para 217, For example, if the additional data pertains to a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher with Bailley’s teaching of a vehicle being configured to compare the data received by a sensor of the vehicle to the predefined map of an environment. Heinla teaches about storing and analyzing map data, but does not mention determining differences between predetermined layout and perception model created by the vehicle sensors. Bailley teaches about determining map changes and designating them as temporary or not temporary. Bailley discusses an example where if a map data received show the changes as temporary, the HD map system indicated the change is temporary meaning its short-term. Bailly’s capability of identifying temporary change implies it’s also capable of determining permanent change. By incorporating Bailley’s change detection system, it’s possible for the autonomous vehicle to initiate an update to its pre-loaded map, allowing it to react effectively to changes that can occur in its surrounding.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Bailley teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 3 (Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein the perception model representative of the predetermined layout of the service area is based on perception data captured by a plurality of perception sensors that are part of the electric mobility device.( Bailly paragraph 0179, The vehicle 150 processes 1104 the sensor data to determine a current location of the vehicle 150 and obtain images from the sensor data. The images capture an environment surrounding the vehicle 150 at the current location from different perspectives. The environment includes roads and objects around the roads. The current location may be determined from the GPS location data or matching the sensor data to an occupancy map. The images of the surroundings and LIDAR data can be used to create a 3D representation of the surroundings. The vehicle 150 such as the perception module 210 applies various signal processing techniques to analyze the sensor data. Alternatively, the vehicle 150 may provide the sensor data to the online HD map system 110 or to a third-party service for analysis).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Bailley teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 3(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: in response to determining the timeframe of the spatial differences is the long-term change, update the one or more map files that represent the predetermined layout of the service area with the spatial differences. (Bailly paragraph 52, In some embodiments, the HD Maps and/or map elements may be updated based on the age of the map elements. For example, for certain elements of a map, the map elements may be updated based on the map elements aging beyond a threshold such that the map made up of the map elements retains a certain degree of freshness. Paragraph 42FIG. 23 illustrates an example system for updating a map based on age of the map. Paragraph 8 a computer-implemented method may include monitoring an age of a tile of a map, where the map includes multiple tiles including the tile. The method may also include, based on the age exceeding a threshold age, determining that the tile of the map is to be updated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches with Bailly’s updating of map based on age threshold. Bailley teaches a method where it monitors the age of a map, after determining that a map is past a threshold, it initiates an update. When the HD map of system of Bailley determines that the map change is permanent and has aged past the threshold the system updates the map, so that the vehicle gets the updated map allowing for an effective navigation.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the method of claim 14( Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server).
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches about a server that store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data, it fails to teach a capability of a server further comprising: receiving, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device; and determining a timeframe of the spatial differences, where the timeframe indicates the spatial differences are caused by either a short-term change or a long-term change.
However, Bailley which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about map updating mechanism for autonomous vehicles discloses a map system further comprising: receiving, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device(Bailly Paragraph 127, Differences between the sensor point cloud data and the HD map point cloud data can be utilized by the change detection system 1620 to determine whether there has been a change at that location, such as a new object in a new object location or a known object being absent. The perception module 1610 can be configured to process the received data to determine sensor data (e.g., camera data or LIDAR data or point cloud difference data) that is to be processed and the frequency (e.g., process 1 out of every 3 frames) of analyzing the processed data. Paragraph 149 The vehicle 150 compares 908 data associated with the objects detected by the vehicles to data associated with the objects on the maps to determine any discrepancies between the vehicle's 150 perception of its environment (i.e., the physical environment corresponding to the predetermined region) and the representation of the environment that is stored in the HD map store 165) and
determining a timeframe of the spatial differences, where the timeframe indicates the spatial differences are caused by either a short-term change or a long-term change. (Bailly para 217, For example, if the additional data pertains to a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches with Bailley’s teaching of a vehicle being configured to compare the data received by a sensor of the vehicle to the predefined map of an environment. Heinla teaches about storing and analyzing map data, but does not mention determining differences between predetermined layout and perception model created by the vehicle sensors. Bailley teaches about determining map changes and designating them as temporary or not temporary. Bailley discusses an example where if a map data received show the changes as temporary, the HD map system indicated the change is temporary meaning its short-term. Bailly’s capability of identifying temporary change implies it’s also capable of determining permanent change. By incorporating Bailley’s change detection system, it’s possible for the autonomous vehicle to initiate an update to its pre-loaded map, allowing it to react effectively to changes that can occur in its surrounding.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Bailly teaches The method of claim 15(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), further comprising: in response to determining the timeframe of the spatial differences is the long-term change, updating the one or more map files that represent the predetermined layout of the service area with the spatial differences. (Bailly paragraph 52, in some embodiments, the HD Maps and/or map elements may be updated based on the age of the map elements. For example, for certain elements of a map, the map elements may be updated based on the map elements aging beyond a threshold such that the map made up of the map elements retains a certain degree of freshness. Paragraph 42 FIG. 23 illustrates an example system for updating a map based on age of the map. Paragraph 8 a computer-implemented method may include monitoring an age of a tile of a map, where the map includes multiple tiles including the tile. The method may also include, based on the age exceeding a threshold age, determining that the tile of the map is to be updated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher with Bailly’s updating of map based on age threshold. Bailley teaches a method where it monitors the age of a map, after determining that a map is past a threshold, it initiates an update. When the HD map of system of Bailley determines that the map change is permanent and has aged past the threshold the system updates the map, so that the vehicle gets the updated map allowing for an effective navigation.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinla (US 20180232839 A1) (hereinafter Heinla) in view of McDuff (US 20200233419 A1) (hereinafter McDuff) in further view of Kokkonen (US 20170318422 A1) (hereinafter Kokkonen) in further view of Fisher (US 20200086494 A1) (hereinafter Fisher) in further view of Sisbot (US 20170274771 A1) (hereinafter Sisbot)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 1 (Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server).
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches about a system of communication between electric mobility devices, client servers, and central computers to receive a task request and transmit the request to the electric mobility device, it fails to teach the establishment of a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
However, Sisbot which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a sharing between a mobile client device and a three-dimensional heads-up display unit, discusses an encrypted peer-to-peer video stream between the 3D HUD of the vehicle and the mobile client device. An electric mobility device communication system wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device. (Sisbot, Paragraph 11 establish an encrypted peer-to-peer video stream between the 3D HUD of the vehicle and the mobile client device so that the mobile client device streams the live video data via the encrypted peer-to-peer video stream.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher with Sisbot’s teaching of establishing a peer-to-peer connection, where a user can connect to a vehicle directly without needing intermediary. It would an obvious modification to incorporate Sisbot’s connection mechanism so that users are able to connect to the electric mobility device directly. Using this peer-to-peer connection users can get a live video feed or stationary images that are captured by one or more cameras mounted on a vehicle. They can get a direct access of item image or live video feed without needing a middleman.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 6(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein a live video feed or stationary images are captured by one or more cameras of the electric mobility device is transmitted over the peer-to-peer communication link to the client server. (Sisbot Paragraph 11, Implementations may include one or more of the following features. The method where the pairing includes establishing an encrypted peer-to-peer video stream between the 3D HUD of the vehicle and the mobile client device so that the mobile client device streams the live video data via the encrypted peer-to-peer video stream. The method where the communicative coupling is encrypted so that only the mobile client device may stream the live video data. The method where the wireless communicative coupling includes an encrypted virtual private network tunnel that is only accessible by the vehicle and the mobile client device. The method where the live video data includes one or more real world images captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle that captures the one or more real world images as viewed by the driver when looking at the 3D HUD).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinla (US 20180232839 A1) (hereinafter Heinla) in view of McDuff (US 20200233419 A1) (hereinafter McDuff) in further view of Kokkonen (US 20170318422 A1) (hereinafter Kokkonen) in further view of Fisher (US 20200086494 A1) (hereinafter Fisher) in further view of Sisbot (US 20170274771 A1) (hereinafter Sisbot).
Regarding claim 17, An electric mobility device communication system (Heinla paragraph 32, A system comprising, paragraph 33 (a) at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations) including one or more remotely located client servers (paragraph 102, Delivery terminal 40 can send request for a delivery to the server. Delivery terminal 40 can be a personal computer, a laptop, a cell phone, a tablet, and/or a wearable computing device such as a watch, a wristband, a ring, glasses and/or contact lenses. Delivery terminal 40 does not have to be at the same physical location the delivery will be transported to), the electric mobility device communication system comprising (Heinla paragraph 32, A system comprising, para 33 (a) at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations;): one or more electric mobility devices( Heinla paragraph 34 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to wirelessly communicate with the at least one server) located within a service area(Heinla paragraph 100, Hub 20 can be used to store, maintain, repair, recharge, and/or resupply robot. Hub 20 can be a physical location or a physical structure such as a shipping container, a warehouse, a depot, a garage and/or a house Para 102, One hub 20 may serve an area of 2-10 square kilometers); and one or more central computers(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server.) in wireless communication (Heinla paragraph 69, A system according to any of the preceding embodiments wherein the communication within the system is wireless.) with the one or more electric mobility devices and the one or more remotely located client servers(Heinla paragraph 41 A system according to any one of the embodiments 2 or 3, wherein the communication between the robot and the delivery terminal is done via the server.), wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: receive a service request from one of the client servers(Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot),
and transmit the service request to the electric mobility device (Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot).
While Heinla teaches about a system of communication between electric mobility devices, client servers, and central computers to receive a task request and transmit the request to the electric mobility device, Heinla fails to teach about receiving specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area;
Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area;
And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; electric mobility devices(robots) wherein the one or more electric mobility devices each execute a service request within the service area; and wherein the task is detecting abnormalities and the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues; establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
However, Kokkonen, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches system and methods for navigational guidance that can incorporate robots, discloses a service request that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area. Receive specific tasks wherein the service request represents a task that one of the electric mobility devices executes within the service area(Kokkonen, paragraph 117, In one embodiment, during the trips to pick up the items purchased by the users via the online shopping cart system, the robots (101) survey the inventory of remaining items available in the stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera (109) and/or RFID reader. The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations). Electric mobility devices(robots) wherein the one or more electric mobility devices each execute a service request within the service area (Kokkonen, paragraph 117,The robots (101) communicate with the server (139) to update the inventory information stored in the database (141), including the currently available items and their locations).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Heinla by incorporating the feature of Kokkonen’s robot. As mentioned in the specification, a service request represents a task where electric mobility devices perform at a given location, and one of the service requests being determining the availability of a specific item of inventory within the service area. Kokkonen’s robots identify the inventory of remaining items available in stores, or a section of a store or the shared warehouse, via the use of the camera and/or RFID reader. In addition, Kokkonen teaches its robot having the ability to determine the currently available items and their locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the camera or RFID reader of Kokkonen that can take image/scan of an item, to check its availiablity. This feature is useful as it allows the user to get an up-to-date information regarding the availability of an item they want to purchase.
The combination of Heinla and Kokkonen specifically fail to disclose:
Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area;
And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria; and wherein the task is detecting abnormalities and the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues; establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
However, McDuff, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about using autonomous vehicle as barrier, discloses about determining number of available mobility devices that are able to execute requests. Determine a total number of electric mobility devices available within the service area (McDuff para 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies the inventory of the self-driving autonomous vehicles 102. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine the number of self-driving autonomous vehicles 102 that are available for deployment to the event location).And in response to determining more than one electric mobility device is available within the service area, identify an electric mobility device that executes the service request based on one or more electric mobility device selection criteria (McDuff Paragraph 38, the autonomous vehicle system 106 identifies a subset of autonomous vehicles 102 as candidate vehicles based on criteria. The autonomous vehicle system 106 may determine which autonomous vehicles 102 to identify by looking at different criteria. Paragraph 40, The criteria may include the distance between the autonomous vehicle 102 and the event location, the charge level or fuel status of the autonomous vehicle). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla and Kokkonen with McDuff regarding the determination of the number of electronic mobile devices in an area. It would have been an obvious modification to incorporate the number determining feature taught by McDuff in area so that the system can assign vehicles to locations nearest to a specific vehicle’s current location. In addition, McDuff teaches a criterion of selecting a vehicle for performing a task, such as evaluating the state of battery charge of autonomous vehicle to determine its capability of completing a task. By incorporating the identifying the number of available vehicles at a location, as well as selecting a vehicle that is in the best condition, it is possible to assign a task to a vehicle that is most capable of completing a task.
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff teaches about different tasks that can be executed by the electric mobility devices(robots), it fails to disclose tasks wherein the task is detecting abnormalities and the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues; establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
However, Fisher, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an apparatus for detecting and characterizing debris pickup during a cleaning operation, discloses tasks wherein the task is detecting abnormalities and the abnormalities include one or more of the following: housekeeping issues, lighting devices that are inoperative, and maintenance issues; (As disclosed in the specification, one of the abnormalities that can be detected by the electronic mobility device is a housekeeping issue such as detecting spillage on the floor. Fisher, paragraph 09, a robot is disclosed. In one exemplary implementation, the robot includes: an actuator configured to move the robot between locations; a spill detector comprising at least one optical imaging device configured to capture at least one image of a scene containing a spill while the robot moves between locations ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff with Fisher’s electric mobility devices(robots) that can execute the task of detecting abnormalities such as a detection of spillage on the floor. While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, and McDuff discuss the different tasks that can be performed by a robot such as surveying an inventory and picking up items, it specifically fails to disclose detecting abnormalities such as detection of spillage. Fisher addresses this deficiency by disclosing robots that are equipped with spill detector that identity spillage. Robots that detect spill use sensors like camera that provide standardized detection capabilities. They won’t miss spill because of human inefficiency offering consistent spill detection.
The combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher specifically fails to disclose a system that establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device.
However, Sisbot which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a sharing between a mobile client device and a three-dimensional heads-up display unit, discusses an encrypted peer-to-peer video stream between the 3D HUD of the vehicle and the mobile client device. A system that establish a direct peer-to-peer communication link between the client server and the electric mobility device(Sisbot, Paragraph 11, establish an encrypted peer-to-peer video stream between the 3D HUD of the vehicle and the mobile client device so that the mobile client device streams the live video data via the encrypted peer-to-peer video stream.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, and Fisher with Sisbot’s teaching of establishing a peer-to-peer connection, where a user can connect to a vehicle directly without needing intermediary. It would an obvious modification to incorporate Sisbot’s connection mechanism so that users are able to connect to the electric mobility device directly. Using this peer-to-peer connection users can get a live video feed or stationary images that are captured by one or more cameras mounted on a vehicle. They can get a direct access of item image or live video feed without needing a middleman.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Sisbot teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 17, wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: ( Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server)
in response to transmitting the service request to the electric mobility device (Heinla paragraph 73, communicating a request for at least one delivery from the at least one delivery terminal to the at least one server and/or to the at least one robot), access one or more map files that represent a predetermined layout of the service area (Initial map data corresponds to a predetermined layout before its adjusted by sensor data, and Heinla on paragraph 19 discloses its server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data. That is, in some embodiments, the robot is adapted to map its surroundings and localize itself based on such a map. The mapping and/or localization can be performed on the robot and/or on the server and/or be split between the two. The server can also perform calculations, for example calculations related to the generation of a geographical map, localization calculations or route calculations for the robot.); and transmit the one or more map files to the electric mobility device. (Heinla Paragraph 19, The server can further store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinla (US 20180232839 A1) (hereinafter Heinla) in view of McDuff (US 20200233419 A1) (hereinafter McDuff) in further view of Kokkonen (US 20170318422 A1) (hereinafter Kokkonen) in further view of Fisher (US 20200086494 A1) (hereinafter Fisher) in further view of Sisbot (US 20170274771 A1) (hereinafter Sisbot) in further view of Bailley (US 20210004363 A1) (hereinafter Bailley).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Sisbot teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 18(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server).
While the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Sisbot teaches about a server that store, analyze and/or send out data, such as for example map and localization related data, it fails to teach a capability wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: receive, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device; and determine a timeframe of the spatial differences, where the timeframe indicates the spatial differences are caused by either a short-term change or a long-term change.
However, Bailley which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about map updating mechanism for autonomous vehicles discloses a map system
wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to:
receive, from the electric mobility device, spatial differences in the predetermined layout represented by the one or more map files and a predetermined layout represented by a perception model created by the electric mobility device(Bailly Paragraph 127, Differences between the sensor point cloud data and the HD map point cloud data can be utilized by the change detection system 1620 to determine whether there has been a change at that location, such as a new object in a new object location or a known object being absent. The perception module 1610 can be configured to process the received data to determine sensor data (e.g., camera data or LIDAR data or point cloud difference data) that is to be processed and the frequency (e.g., process 1 out of every 3 frames) of analyzing the processed data. Paragraph 149 The vehicle 150 compares 908 data associated with the objects detected by the vehicles to data associated with the objects on the maps to determine any discrepancies between the vehicle's 150 perception of its environment (i.e., the physical environment corresponding to the predetermined region) and the representation of the environment that is stored in the HD map store 165) and determine a timeframe of the spatial differences, where the timeframe indicates the spatial differences are caused by either a short-term change or a long-term change. (Bailly para 217, For example, if the additional data pertains to a lane of a road which has temporarily closed due to construction work nearby, the online HD map system 110 may update the map to indicate that lane of that road as temporarily closed).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Sisbot with Bailley’s teaching of a vehicle being configured to compare the data received by a sensor of the vehicle to the predefined map of an environment. Heinla teaches about storing and analyzing map data, but does not mention determining differences between predetermined layout and perception model created by the vehicle sensors. Bailley teaches about determining map changes and designating them as temporary or not temporary. Bailley discusses an example where if a map data received show the changes as temporary, the HD map system indicated the change is temporary meaning its short-term. Bailly’s capability of identifying temporary change implies it’s also capable of determining permanent change. By incorporating Bailley’s change detection system, it’s possible for the autonomous vehicle to initiate an update to its pre-loaded map, allowing it to react effectively to changes that can occur in its surrounding.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, Sisbot, and Bailley teaches the electric mobility device communication system of claim 19(Heinla paragraph 37, at least one server adapted for at least: coordinating communication within the system, receiving/storing/sending data and/or performing computations; paragraph 38 at least one robot operating autonomously or semi-autonomously and adapted to communicate with the at least one server in order to facilitate transport of a delivery by the robot to at least one recipient; and paragraph 39, at least one delivery terminal communicating with the at least one robot and/or the at least one server), wherein the one or more central computers execute instructions to: in response to determining the timeframe of the spatial differences is the long-term change, update the one or more map files that represent the predetermined layout of the service area with the spatial differences. (Bailly paragraph, in some embodiments, the HD Maps and/or map elements may be updated based on the age of the map elements. For example, for certain elements of a map, the map elements may be updated based on the map elements aging beyond a threshold such that the map made up of the map elements retains a certain degree of freshness. Paragraph 42FIG. 23 illustrates an example system for updating a map based on age of the map. Paragraph 8 a computer-implemented method may include monitoring an age of a tile of a map, where the map includes multiple tiles including the tile. The method may also include, based on the age exceeding a threshold age, determining that the tile of the map is to be updated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Heinla, Kokkonen, McDuff, Fisher, and Sisbot with Bailly’s updating of map based on age threshold. Bailley teaches a method where it monitors the age of a map, after determining that a map is past a threshold, it initiates an update. When the HD map of system of Bailley determines that the map change is permanent and has aged past the threshold the system updates the map, so that the vehicle gets the updated map allowing for an effective navigation.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure.
Suvarna (US-20190029486-A1) discloses a robot with detects and picks up debris from the floor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BESUFEKAD TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights